About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, they should go after me. and i am happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi? and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation? is outrageous. >> sean: i hope you were paying very close attention there. because as usual when the teleprompters are not scrolling, the truth magically comes out. what you heard from the president for the first time, he admitted that rice was sent on the sunday shows, quote, at the request of the white house. now, if that is in fact the case and if susan rice was following marching orders from the president himself, well, that means she went into battle armed with white house talking points. and what do those talking points say? it appears they told her to ignore the intelligence committee because they knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind this strike. instead of telling the truth, she repeatedly blamed the death of a u.s. ambassador and three other americans on this, quote, youtube video. why? because that's what she w
is telling the american people something that is factually inaccurate and two weeks later at u.n., and answering questions in two separate media interviews, when the president's asked, he is referring to the youtube video. how is that possible? >> it is not. to me, it cannot be justified. it cannot be plained because the intelligence community's own analises, we saw the memos today, they said that al qaeda-affiliated groups were directly involved in these attacks. there is no way this can be explained. in fact, certainly on the videos there is no sign of any demonstration, there was no demitration. you know, they say the different reports coming in, always, there is always a fog of war. but the preponderance of the evidence from the start was this this was clearly a terrorist-directed attack. but general petraeus briefed us and discounted that and said it was not a terrorist attack. there may have been terrorists in the crowd, but there are terrorists everywhere in libya. >> sean: but he was not under oath. he said today he wanted to clarify those remarks? >> well, if he does, i
. and they are going to say we suppressed the minority vote. you know, the u.n. is sending inspectors into the united states if see that our election or fair and what is going to happen is the narrative is going to be, oh, romney stole the election by suppressing the minority vote. that's what we talk about in "black helicopter" the u.n. taking over global governments and it will be absolutely fraudulent and you will hear it right after the election. but, sean, on election night -- >> we got to go. >> i want you to be thinking of me. >> dick morris, thanks for being with you. one final word to everybody tonight. this election now, you have heard from the pundits, you've heard from the politicians, heard the debates, but now it's where it should be. it's in the hands of you, the american people. this will be a tipping point election for the country. those who believe in bigger government, those who think go
's not definitively concluded. so back to the confirmation of the hearing but this is someone who has served the u.n. very well. she worked on the security council to bring these crippling sanctions on iran. she has a long resume. she has full confidence. >> sean: you know hillary clinton you are friends with the clintons. she does not have the resume, she is no hillary clinton. >> she is not hillary clinton but she brings a different skill set. hillary clinton, i adore and fill that role as secretary and traveled the world and been a diplomat. it's a different role but not to say susan rice is not qualified. >> she is so passive. i spoke to high level folks that have worked in the united nations and they all said the same thing. she is very passive when it comes to the united nations. when you look at iran she was part of that out stretched hand to basically suspend sanctions to iran. last time they brought up a resolution against iran, it was back in june 2010 -- this is not the person you want leading the department of state. we've got, for example, they joined the human rights council, she was a
happened from the beginning. and it contradicts u.n. ambassador susan rice, who five days after the attack made the rounds on all five sunday talk shows. remember, she was pushing the position that violence was in reaction to a youtube video. what make this is scandal potentially historic in its reach and effect is the role of the president in all of this. now every day, as more evidence comes out, it is becoming more special more clear that barack obama had to know that there was mounting evidence that al qaeda was involve in this attack and that the anti-islamic video had nothing to do with the murder of ambassador stevens and three others, long before obama continued to point blame at the 13-minute youtube video. think about it this way f. obama's cia director knew almost instantaneously that an al qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack and the station chief in libya reported to washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants. and if email shows that the officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours aft
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)